Author Topic: A question (Read 1746 times)

Dago · « **on:** October 16, 2001, 11:53:00 AM »

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military
personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224
and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be
hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 3
U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 people would
be alive today.

An interesting question:

This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting
stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both extremely
wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives hundreds of
millions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism.

That being the case, why is it that the US government has spent more
money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years than Osama bin
Laden?

It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her
forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to
recall anything about past events!
Incredible!!

Eagler · « **Reply #1 on:** October 16, 2001, 01:09:00 PM »

no comment .. you said it all

weazel · « **Reply #2 on:** October 16, 2001, 03:25:00 PM »

Clinton:
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,

Right Wing wailing.

Clinton:
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,

Right Wing wringing their hands.

Clinton:
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,

Right Wing gnashing their teeth.

Clinton:
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,

Ad Nauseum

Clinton administration: 291 dead in terrorist attacks during 8 years in office, 6203 injured.

Bush administration 5000+ dead, 5000+ injured in terrorist attacks in 9 months in office.

Not a very good record when compared is it?

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 people would
be alive today.

Are you forgetting that they tried to kill OBL?

Granted the effort was ineffectual but do you think he may have been DISTRACTED trying to remove that hemorrhoid Starr from his anus?

I see a lot of patriotism from Americans talking about how we ALL need to stand behind the President in times of emergency and I agree with that.

Where in hell were all these <lol> patriots when Clinton faced the same challenges albeit on a smaller scale, buncha hypocrites.

An interesting question:
That being the case, why is it that the US government has spent more
money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years than Osama bin
Laden?

During that same period the Starr commision spent HOW MUCH time and money chasing shadows and invading American citizens private lives?

To only come up with marital infidelity...sheesh, wouldn't that money and effort have been better spent chasing OBL?

The Republican party isn't as blameless as you guys like to portray.

How about the Bush BLUNDER of 3 weeks ago?

They had OBL in the sights of an armed Predator drone but squandered a golden opportunity to kill him.

I suppose they wouldn't have had good reason to bomb the toejam out of Afghanistan had they done so... toejam they need to feed the defense contractors don't they?

Clinton was a putz, but aren't you guys going on about him well beyond reason?

Edited for page format.

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: weazel ]

Eagler · « **Reply #3 on:** October 16, 2001, 03:53:00 PM »

Dago just stated the facts & I agreed with him. No name calling, no excitement.
I appreciate the last paragraph of his post concerning the book deals the best ...don't think he meant to get ur panties in a wad weazel

Greese · « **Reply #4 on:** October 16, 2001, 04:13:00 PM »

Nope.

First off, this is the United States. Freedom to pick apart the president is one of the things we enjoy, and I'll expect to hear all about Dubya's problems when he's done.

Secondly, the problem most people have with Clinton today is his reduction of the military. He didn't take care of it at all.
Also, he really went out of his way to earn the nickname "Slick Willy". He cared more about public opinion than anything, whatever got him re-elected, and whatever developed some legacy. So far as we can tell, the legacy he left is not so great, and we are still finding out about stuff.

Ken Starr: I'm sorry, Clinton made that a public issue by going on national TV, looking straight at us, and lying about it. He would be in much better shape if he had just admitted it, taken a couple weeks off to repair his relationship with his wife, and gotten back to work. Instead, he tried to dodge the bullets, and that's what got him into real trouble. His constant dodging around and lying is what turned that fiasco into the public issue it became.

Clinton had all the power to go after Bin Laden that Bush has now, he just didn't use it. Democrats tend to use the military less, and now it's coming back to haunt them. Cruise Missles hitting the sand and breaking apart a few tents just wouldn't cut it now.

Using the number of lives lost during an administration to compare effectiveness is a joke, ESPECIALLY since Bush has only been in office less than a year. Who handed him that situation? It didn't develop under Bush's watch, just showed it's ugly self now. To put the blame on Bush is way out of line. Clinton shouldn't be blamed for it either, but he did have the power to do something about it in the eight years he was commander in chief of the military.

weazel · « **Reply #5 on:** October 16, 2001, 04:31:00 PM »

Originally posted by Greese:
Nope.

First off, this is the United States. Freedom to pick apart the president is one of the things we enjoy, and I'll expect to hear all about Dubya's problems when he's done.

Why wait until he's done...did Clinton get that luxury?

Secondly, the problem most people have with Clinton today is his reduction of the military. He didn't take care of it at all.
Also, he really went out of his way to earn the nickname "Slick Willy". He cared more about public opinion than anything, whatever got him re-elected, and whatever developed some legacy. So far as we can tell, the legacy he left is not so great, and we are still finding out about stuff.

What did you expect? Every politician want to be re-elected.
I recognize that the military lost effectiveness during his tenure and it was irresponsible.

Ken Starr: I'm sorry, Clinton made that a public issue by going on national TV, looking straight at us, and lying about it. He would be in much better shape if he had just admitted it, taken a couple weeks off to repair his relationship with his wife, and gotten back to work. Instead, he tried to dodge the bullets, and that's what got him into real trouble. His constant dodging around and lying is what turned that fiasco into the public issue it became.

Think what you like, I support the Constitution of the US, and IMO what Starr did was not only illegal but also highly distasteful in prying into Clintons sexual affairs.
I could care less if him and Hillary were bringing a donkey into their bedroom, it was none of our business.

Clinton had all the power to go after Bin Laden that Bush has now

The point is he DIDN'T have the support behind him Bush has right now, it took 5000 lives to get it...where were all the patriots at then? Probably glued to the TV ogling Clintons sexual affairs....right?

Using the number of lives lost during an administration to compare effectiveness is a joke, ESPECIALLY since Bush has only been in office less than a year. Who handed him that situation? It didn't develop under Bush's watch, just showed it's ugly self now. To put the blame on Bush is way out of line. Clinton shouldn't be blamed for it either, but he did have the power to do something about it in the eight years he was commander in chief of the military.

I only pointed out what happened on BOTH of their watchs, I'm not assigning blame to either of them just a comparison.

You say you don't blame Clinton yet your whole post points the finger at him.

Hypocrite.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: weazel ]

-ammo- · « **Reply #6 on:** October 16, 2001, 04:43:00 PM »

weazel, man I had no idea you support that lying excuse for a man so much. You and "MG" friends, brothers? You two blow the same horn

Dago · « **Reply #7 on:** October 16, 2001, 04:53:00 PM »

Quote

Clinton administration: 291 dead in terrorist attacks during 8 years in office, 6203 injured. Bush administration 5000+ dead, 5000+ injured in terrorist attacks in 9 months in office.

Not a very good record when compared is it?

Weasel,

Now not even a reasonable intelligent person can offer that up as any kind of response or reason.

Its like someone pulling the pin on a grenade, juggling it for a few seconds and tossing it to someone else.. It would blow up on the second guy because of an action the first one took. Would the first guy then say "hey, it never blew up when I handled it, you must have screwed up, and now you have a bad record".

This is pretty comparable to what happened to Bush. Clinton, through his inactions and failure to effectively deal with terrorism left a situation that was only going to get worse. Now Bush has to deal with the mess caused by Clintons inability and lack of spine.

BTW, not take credit where due, I got that original post in an email and just pasted it here. But I did that because I found it interesting and worthy of some thought.

Dago

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Dago ]

Erlkonig · « **Reply #8 on:** October 16, 2001, 05:13:00 PM »

Quote

That being the case, why is it that the US government has spent more
money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years than Osama bin
Laden?

This is a good example of the fallacy of the loaded question. Basically, the question is "loaded" with a statement assumed to be true - in this case the original caller did not bother to present a case that more money was in fact spent on Bill Gates than Osama bin Laden. If anyone has actual data regarding this I would be interested, but somehow I doubt that is forthcoming.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Erlkonig ]

weazel · « **Reply #9 on:** October 16, 2001, 06:00:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -ammo-:
weazel, man I had no idea you support that lying excuse for a man so much. You and "MG" friends, brothers? You two blow the same horn

Where do I "support Clinton" in my posts?

Is it this line:
"Clinton was a putz"
Oops... can't be that one it's critical of him.

I recognize that the military lost effectiveness during his tenure and it was irresponsible.
Nope...not that one either.

The only thing supportive of Clinton is the reference to his RIGHT to privacy.

You know....that part of the Constitution the Right Wing finds distasteful?

Please quit trying to put a conservative <lol> spin on what I'm saying.

Dago, go back and READ my previous post - it's a comparison, not an attempt to assign blame to either of them.

If I wanted to assign blame it would go back to decades of US policy, not just recent history.

...don't think he meant to get ur panties in a wad weazel

No panties here, I'm nekkid!

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: weazel ]

-ammo- · « **Reply #10 on:** October 16, 2001, 07:01:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weazel:

The only thing supportive of Clinton is the reference to his RIGHT to privacy.

You know....that part of the Constitution the Right Wing finds distasteful?

Actually the part I found I found distasteful was his total disreguard of his what is right or wrong. He was in the highest position there is in the country that I love and he could care less about the sorry image he projected. He blatently would lie to the same people he swore to defend. He is without a doubt the most selfish person I have ever seen. The "right wing" (your label) represented me when they sought justice for his dispicableness.

Just My opinion but I bet there are alot more like me.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: -ammo- ]

Wobble · « **Reply #11 on:** October 16, 2001, 07:23:00 PM »

cheating on his wife.. was none of the public's business,thats a family matter, that should be delt with on the family level, not the national level, so the fact that he lied about it is a moot point, it wasnt any of our business to begin with..

still didnt like him though.

easymo · « **Reply #12 on:** October 16, 2001, 07:27:00 PM »

We make a draft dodger the commander and chief. Then we are surprised the he has no character. Its no wonder some people thought we were to stupid to defend ourselves.

-ammo- · « **Reply #13 on:** October 16, 2001, 07:56:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wobble:
cheating on his wife.. was none of the public's business,thats a family matter, that should be delt with on the family level, not the national level, so the fact that he lied about it is a moot point, it wasnt any of our business to begin with..

still didnt like him though.

This has been discussed at length umpteen times on this BBS alone. If Lieing is OK with you, and cheating is OK with you, and general subjectiveness to what is true and right is OK with you, then by all means its none of your business what Bill Clinton did.

weazel · « **Reply #14 on:** October 16, 2001, 08:15:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -ammo-:

This has been discussed at length umpteen times on this BBS alone. If Lieing is OK with you, and cheating is OK with you, and general subjectiveness to what is true and right is OK with you, then by all means its none of your business what Bill Clinton did.

That's a circular argument ammo, the bottom line is as a citizen of the US was he entitled to his personal privacy?

Regardless of him being a lying,cheating, rat bastard he was entitled to the rights granted by the US Constitution...you know, the same Constitution you swore to defend?

A double standard is just....wrong.

PS:
Actually the part I found I found distasteful was his total disreguard of his what is right or wrong.

Two wrongs don't make a right do they?

Lol easymo, running to Canada or getting daddy to *find* <buy> you a spot in the National Guard is the same thing in my eyes.

Both are chickenshit.

I served in the US Army, I never saw combat but was in a few history making operations.

IMO compulsory military service should be a requirement for all US citizens when they reach adult age. <S>

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: weazel ]